Erotic Retardation III and counting

["ben merkle" <benmerkle@moscow.com>]

Huskey writes "You've said that it's a boring and ugly world in which women
are not
primarily erotic objects.   Ask the women in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia how
thrilling and beautiful it is to be regarded always as erotic objects.
There
can be no uglier or more mind-numbingly tedious world *for women* than one
in
which their erotic and reproductive  potential is the primary dimension of
their existence."

Where did that leap come from? It's Trinitarianism that keeps women from
becoming objects. No one has asserted that women ought to be objects. And
where did anyone claim that a woman's "erotic and reproductive potential" is
the "primary dimension" of her existence? Yesterday Huskey told us that "the
rest of us appear confident that the mere contemplation of the human chest
in nakedness will not cause the collapse of our city into riotous sexual
excess." But we seem to have good reason to distrust your assurance. At the
mere suggestion that female breasts might be erotically attractive you begin
making connections to the Taliban. Why can't you imagine an erotic world
that doesn't require the bondage of women?

Ben Merkle